FANDOM

Nota bene
  1. Please use the Leave Message button if you are posting a new discussion topic, rather than editing an existing heading to add a new discussion.
  2. If you are responding to an existing discussion, please edit that section's heading, rather than using Leave Message.
  3. If you post a message on my talkpage, then I will respond on your talkpage. This means you will be guaranteed a notification that I have responded.
  4. If you wish to receive any response to a message I've left on your talkpage, then you should respond to my talkpage. If you post on your own talkpage, then there's a high chance that I will not see any response you leave, as I do not follow articles on wiki's and rely on the "You have a new message" bubble notification on other wiki's.

Reference Quotes

Hey - I'd like to undo you edits to my DADA reference that included the pertinent quote. I would suggest in general that small contextual quotes be included when possible with references so as to provide the details immediately at hand and avoid losing the information if the source link breaks. Given the very extensive link rot on the site (especially with the Pottermore change over) much of the previously cited info now lacks a confirmable canonical source. Pulling a small quote preserves and highlights the fact being referenced, instead of a general citation for a web page or book chapter. While this ref is for a book, there is no link to break and I can always include the info as a quote in the article, but as a general reference style, brief quoting is is more complete and permanent and worth using when possible. Your thoughts? Ironyak1 (talk) 10:59, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

While I agree a quote is not necessary do you feel they are harmful in some way? Why remove solid canonical information from the page? Imagine if everyone had copied small snipets from Pottermore for their Notes and references instead of a naked link? That information would still be viable and supporting the article instead of a broken link. Future proofing and preventing link rot is a common wiki & referencing concern yes? Saying that the fandom will just die off anyways so who's to care is pretty pessimistic IMHO. Ironyak1 (talk) 11:39, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree you with if it was a just a "reference" section, but the articles have a Notes and references section and as such acts both like foot notes that provide additional explanation, quotes, examples as well as basic references. Its not necessary to ref anything at all and many people don't bother leading to all sorts dubious info. In this case, I'm happy to move this info into a quote box, but I will be using small direct quotes in other notes and refs section for clarity and would appreciate you not erasing the extra time and effort this takes. Sound good? Ironyak1 (talk) 12:03, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
There are many pages that have foot notes without any links or source refs in the Notes and refrrence section including Harry_Potter so its not just for reference links as you seem to feel (or there are many, many counter examples to this expectation that need fixing?) As for community pages, I can add stuff, you can remove it, and I can add it back, etc, etc, ad naseum. This talk is trying to prevent that. As you seem disinclined to recognize any other use pattern than your own it's probably best to have an admin weigh in. Ironyak1 (talk) 12:52, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

Including direct quotes from the books in references is acceptable (and even preferable) in certain cases. Sometimes information is "buried" within the source text or delivered in a confusing manner, and, thus, providing readers with the relevant quote instead of simply giving them a book and chapter may be more helpful. It resolves any ambiguity over where the information is being culled from the source text, and can help prevent the inevitable cycle of someone removing information from an article because they can't remember the exact place it's revealed in canon, and someone else having to restore said information with an explanation.

That said, I can understand concerns about excessive/unnecessary quotes cluttering up "Notes and references" sections, so the inclusion of quotes in references should only be done on a case-by-case basis. If there's any doubts over the utility of particular quote included in a reference, this is probably best resolved on the article's talk page. Starstuff (Owl me!) 00:43, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

re: Quotes

Hmm... I´d tend to say that including the chapter reference is enough. --Rodolphus (talk) 12:17, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

The issue I am running into is that the article text sometimes doesn't align with the source text so I've been adding small quotes in some refs to clarify the source material. This page is not the best example but having the specific quote up front hopefully helps avoid future edits that re-obfusicate the facts. Is it necessary? No of course. Is it helpful? Can be when sorting out nuances and details IMHO. In this case I'm trying to untangle Dippet's info that is overloaded with lots of assumptions and speculation; but the answers hinge around the DADA position dates so having clarity of evidence there to discuss is essential. Hope that helps explain the reason for adding some extra details. Ironyak1 (talk) 12:52, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

re Discord

Yep that's me, I always forget to sign on though cuz I mainly use skype. User talk:BachLynn23 20:55, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Trivia Note

Hi, as a Potter researcher I use the wiki a lot. However, I saw a mistake in "The Hogwarts railway viaduct". The jacobite isn't the locomotive no 5972 used in the HP movies, but another type, not even from the GWR. I changed it but it appears you removed it. Why, may I ask? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JiskPotthead (talkcontribs).

Ah, thank you. I'm completely new here so I need to know the standards, but thanks. Hope to have a wonderful time here. --JiskPotthead (talk) 12:40, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

I want to say something: I know you try to help me, but it gives me a rough time. Alot of people-Maybe even you- Find it annoying that I don't enjoy help much. Sorry for the inconvinience. =(  CorporealPatronus (talk) 22:06, April 19, 2016 (UTC)Patronus

Source Material Templates

Thanks for the clarification on the templates and how to use them within refs - obviously I missed the quotes. Making the change over from article links to the templates seems like a large but useful task. Is this part of what you are looking to automate? Ironyak1 (talk) 21:55, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Jdogno7

Sajuuk,

a word to the wise - User:Jdogno7 is a known cross-wiki vandal and troll, which can only be dealt with by blocking him indefinitely.

You can check his past history on here, on hercxena, on disney and on a number of other wikis you can google yourself - "Jdogno7" and "wikia" as key words. Grow some hair on your chest 'cause it is a fugly read. Easy enogh, because he's got a small repertoire of tricks, but fugly nonetheless.

I know you've got rights over text, but none over users, so I'll recommend the following: 1) don't answer his questions; he'll just take it as a weakness; fully protect the pages he's editing, and revert them to their original state; 3) hope that an admin bans him indefinitely in the near future.

You won't get from me anything more than this - I have interacted with J7 in the past and have no intention to do so again. Best, RegardingJdogno7 (talk) 11:53, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

"User:Jdogno7 is a known cross-wiki vandal and troll, which can only be dealt with by blocking him indefinitely.": I do not know who you are but that is a lie.

"You can check his past history on here, on hercxena, on disney and on a number of other wikis you can google yourself - "Jdogno7" and "wikia" as key words. Grow some hair on your chest 'cause it is a fugly read. Easy enogh, because he's got a small repertoire of tricks, but fugly nonetheless.": As a general rule I try to be polite at all times but all I can say about this is: What the fuck are you talking about?

"I know you've got rights over text, but none over users, so I'll recommend the following: 1) don't answer his questions; he'll just take it as a weakness; fully protect the pages he's editing, and revert them to their original state; 3) hope that an admin bans him indefinitely in the near future.": "don't answer his questions; he'll just take it as a weakness;", Why shouldn't questions be answered if they are legitimate questions? "fully protect the pages he's editing, and revert them to their original state;", Why? Have I damaged them somehow?! "hope that an admin bans him indefinitely in the near future.", well I wouldn't wish that on your cowardly arse so that does that make me a better person?

"You won't get from me anything more than this - I have interacted with J7 in the past and have no intention to do so again.": Who the fuck are you, you bloody COWARD?

--Jdogno7 (talk) 12:10, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Discussions with Jdogno7

I, all with numerous other users, have across several years and wikis striven to reason with this user. I have never heard him accept being in error, and the debates were always endless. He has decided that 'gods' must be replaced by 'deities', and will now set about converting this entire wiki, until the next time he is blocked, which has happened frequently in the past. His talkpage provides ample evidence of the situations there have been. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 11:59, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+